“f the posters seem at first glance to have a retro vibe, you’re not wrong, as the congresswoman confirmed in a follow-up tweet. The chunky all-caps type, the emphasis on places of natural beauty, and even the color palettes are intended to evoke posters produced nearly a century ago by a singular federal program in American history: the Federal Art Project, an office of the New Deal-era Works Progress Administration. (The program survived the termination of the WPA for a few years within a new agency, the Federal Works Administration.)”

jacksmith4tx wrote: “Some good satire and comix on this thread at the Arctic sea-ice forum”

I started that thread, with the first post back in 2015. My actual intent was to start a thread for friendly self-deprecating humor — i.e., for ASIF posters to laugh at ourselves. That concept didn’t survive, unfortunately, but the thread now has 1200+ posts and 320,000+ views.

That said, I finally gave up on ASIF and stopped participating. Too many nut-cases and too few people who actually know what they’re talking about. It’s basically the non-evil-twin of WUWT.

The issue seems to be that you’ve relied on one (ahem, repeatedly discredited) source for your information on adaptation, Bjorn Lomborg and his “brilliant presentation”. Surely relying on one discredited source is a no-no in history and well as journalism?

There was actually a message: (i) we have known about AGW for a while (The Warming papers) (ii) the information you need is easily available and updated on a regular basis (the three IPCC reports) (iii) there are accessible introductions for the lay-person (Houghton) (iv) there are intermediate level (undergraduate) texts (Pierrehumbert) if you really want to understand the physics (v) if you want to see research level stuff, that is available as well (Carbon Cycle Modelling book – although a bit dated now). So there is little excuse for repeating canards.